A recent article much touted in mainstream media gave us the
lowdown on a cancer research UK report: 'World Cancer Day,' predicting
that half the UK's citizens will at some point in their lives be
diagnosed with cancer.
I have no reason to doubt that cancer researchers would probably find the same statistic for other Western World countries such as the USA. However, whether or not the 1 in 2 statistic will turn out to be true is not my issue: What is is that it doesn't have to be this way for a number of reasons not mentioned in the article, or by cancer research and mainstream media as a rule.
Cancer and the early detection myth
The first point is that cancer research's claim that they have improved on detecting cancers earlier through better screening programmes so that more can be effectively done when treating patients at early stages... is flawed.
Sure, the related early detection technology has improved but here's the rub. No matter how much more early detection it is still unclear whether or not the cancer found will be benign or malignant. Because cancer rakes in huge profits for the medical / pharmaceutical establishment mistakes have been made through biasness; judging many early cancers to be malignant, justifying expensive treatment when they were benign.
-Always remember, no money to be had when benign from the body's natural healing ability.
'Lifestyle' and the playing down of nutrition
Sure, the article rightly mentions that a high percentage (60% plus) of cancer patients are elderly people 65 years and older and that the crucial factors diet, lifestyle, genetics and the environment will determine whether or not an individual will be affected.
However, in spite of the evidence cancer research greatly plays down and practically ignores the use of nutrition as an effective cure. It makes all the sense that the very fabric of our bodies and our health should depend on quality nutrition needed for growth, maintenance, cell replacement and repair, so why not use it as a medicine to treat cancer?
The use of cheap, natural, non-toxic, non-invasive nutrition as medicine to treat cancer has been acknowledged and effectively applied by many brilliant pioneers over the years. Try looking up these: Max Gerson with metabolic nutritional therapy, Ernst Krebs' Laetrile Therapy (particularly look up how the science was deliberately botched with bad science by the medical / pharmaceutical establishment to avoid making this inexpensive cure available).Then there's Harry Hoxey's herbal remedies and Rene Caisse's herbal formula... to name but a few.
-Here you'll find that all these innovators with their effective cancers cures have been unjustly ridiculed, ignored, suppressed and some even attacked by the medical / pharmaceutical establishment closing down premises because they will not allow some cheaper competitor undercut their business.
The establishment owns and controls the cancer research world-wide institutions around the world so it makes sense for the researchers to be indoctrinated into not paying that much attention to nutrition. Any real researcher, particularly those thinking with their hearts would see right through the establishment's motivations and validate those naturopathic alternatives.
Genetics
What about the genetic explanation? It's not so much about genetics it's more to do with genetic expression. Sure you could inherit a potential cancer causing gene. However, you can also have a gene that prevents cancer. Which gene will get switched on depends on a number of factors...
The environment
A number of environmental factors increasing cancer risk were never mentioned. Such as the rising number and more frequent usage of electromagnetic field (EMF) devices like cell phones and WiFi applications. There are numerous studies to confirm this. For example the 'Bio initiative Report 2012' documents many peer-reviewed research cases confirming the potential damage of EMF's. Then there are those other environmental threats like GMO's, the spread of Fukushima radioactive pollution in our seas spreading carcinogens, geo-engineering, bio-warfare...
A cautionary tale
With the mention of diet, lifestyle and environmental factors having an influence on whether or not we get cancer at least the article serves as a cautionary tale reminding us what we need to pay heed to.
However, it must be remembered that cancer research comes under the wing of the medical / pharmaceutical establishment having more interest in corporate profits than the genuine welfare concern of our health. Learn to be discerning. You can't do a single thing about something you know nothing about, buying blindly into the deception...
Above all
-The biggest threat to health is ignorance and apathy.
I have no reason to doubt that cancer researchers would probably find the same statistic for other Western World countries such as the USA. However, whether or not the 1 in 2 statistic will turn out to be true is not my issue: What is is that it doesn't have to be this way for a number of reasons not mentioned in the article, or by cancer research and mainstream media as a rule.
Cancer and the early detection myth
The first point is that cancer research's claim that they have improved on detecting cancers earlier through better screening programmes so that more can be effectively done when treating patients at early stages... is flawed.
Sure, the related early detection technology has improved but here's the rub. No matter how much more early detection it is still unclear whether or not the cancer found will be benign or malignant. Because cancer rakes in huge profits for the medical / pharmaceutical establishment mistakes have been made through biasness; judging many early cancers to be malignant, justifying expensive treatment when they were benign.
-Always remember, no money to be had when benign from the body's natural healing ability.
'Lifestyle' and the playing down of nutrition
Sure, the article rightly mentions that a high percentage (60% plus) of cancer patients are elderly people 65 years and older and that the crucial factors diet, lifestyle, genetics and the environment will determine whether or not an individual will be affected.
However, in spite of the evidence cancer research greatly plays down and practically ignores the use of nutrition as an effective cure. It makes all the sense that the very fabric of our bodies and our health should depend on quality nutrition needed for growth, maintenance, cell replacement and repair, so why not use it as a medicine to treat cancer?
The use of cheap, natural, non-toxic, non-invasive nutrition as medicine to treat cancer has been acknowledged and effectively applied by many brilliant pioneers over the years. Try looking up these: Max Gerson with metabolic nutritional therapy, Ernst Krebs' Laetrile Therapy (particularly look up how the science was deliberately botched with bad science by the medical / pharmaceutical establishment to avoid making this inexpensive cure available).Then there's Harry Hoxey's herbal remedies and Rene Caisse's herbal formula... to name but a few.
-Here you'll find that all these innovators with their effective cancers cures have been unjustly ridiculed, ignored, suppressed and some even attacked by the medical / pharmaceutical establishment closing down premises because they will not allow some cheaper competitor undercut their business.
The establishment owns and controls the cancer research world-wide institutions around the world so it makes sense for the researchers to be indoctrinated into not paying that much attention to nutrition. Any real researcher, particularly those thinking with their hearts would see right through the establishment's motivations and validate those naturopathic alternatives.
Genetics
What about the genetic explanation? It's not so much about genetics it's more to do with genetic expression. Sure you could inherit a potential cancer causing gene. However, you can also have a gene that prevents cancer. Which gene will get switched on depends on a number of factors...
The environment
A number of environmental factors increasing cancer risk were never mentioned. Such as the rising number and more frequent usage of electromagnetic field (EMF) devices like cell phones and WiFi applications. There are numerous studies to confirm this. For example the 'Bio initiative Report 2012' documents many peer-reviewed research cases confirming the potential damage of EMF's. Then there are those other environmental threats like GMO's, the spread of Fukushima radioactive pollution in our seas spreading carcinogens, geo-engineering, bio-warfare...
A cautionary tale
With the mention of diet, lifestyle and environmental factors having an influence on whether or not we get cancer at least the article serves as a cautionary tale reminding us what we need to pay heed to.
However, it must be remembered that cancer research comes under the wing of the medical / pharmaceutical establishment having more interest in corporate profits than the genuine welfare concern of our health. Learn to be discerning. You can't do a single thing about something you know nothing about, buying blindly into the deception...
Above all
-The biggest threat to health is ignorance and apathy.
